Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

If you don't think that invading someone's privacy is wrong, or entrapping people into squeezing money out of them is wrong, there is something wrong with you.

I'm sorry, while I'd even agree with the privacy slant, and I don't really have much love for the RIAA... excuse me? Entrapment?

Let's have look at dictionary.reference.com [reference.com], shall we. The only definitions that fit in a legal context, seem to be the likes of "the luring by a law-enforcement agent of a person into committing a crime" (Random House Unabri

I'm sick of slashdot pretending to be some kind of grown up adult web site, when in reality, like digg, its just a publicity machine for the idiots in the pirate party.

You seem to be a little confused./. is not a person./. is a collection of lots of different people, including you, with different views, including yours./. does not pretend or claim to be anything beyond "News for nerds. Stuff that matters", although individuals may pretend or claim that it is something else./. cannot be a publicity machine for any interest group (except, perhaps, nerds) because although individuals may act as publicity machines for particular groups it's an open forum and so contrary opinion can always be expressed with equal weight (and the holder of that contrary opinion is just as liable to get mod points). Do try to remember that a couple of guys you happen to disagree with do not comprise the whole of/., and if you have a counter-argument to what they say then present it.

The AC appears to be complaining about the daily story selections, and not neccessary regular posters like you and I. To be fair, there are only 14 authors total, and they decide what goes on the front page.

While I consider Slashdot worthy enough to read and post to, I wouldn't recommend believing in your portrayal of an unbiased and fair democracy either.

Even then, the story is written in a pretty neutral way and should be of interest to pro-RIAA folks as much as anti-RIAA folks. As far as I can see it's only the tagging that shows a clear bias (and I don't usually bother looking at that).

It doesn't bother us (well, me, at the very least) so much that someone who illegally copies content gets busted and has to pay for it. What bothers me is the blanket/boilerplate way this is tried. The content industry usually has little to no evidence and abuses the court system for practices that smell a lot like extortion. "Pay or we drag you to court and your expenses are insanely higher" is the message.

Interesting enough, every single case is dropped as soon as the defendent has the guts (and money) to stand up against the threat.

So far they failed to present a single solid case. They rely on judges who don't know jack about the matter, on people who cannot afford to actually go to court against them and on scaremongering.

And yes, that's what I'm against. I can rather live with a pirate in freedom than with a corporation having the right to extort money from whoever they please.

It doesn't bother us (well, me, at the very least) so much that someone who illegally copies content gets busted and has to pay for it.

Incidentally, it does bother me. Why? Because we all know that a huge number of people infringe copyright on a daily basis. In fact, among the Internet-using population, I would be willing to bet that most people (>90%) have infringed copyright at some point. (During a talk at Google, Cory Doctorow asked the audience, by show of hands, how many had infringed copyright in

The sad fact is that with the increasing insanity spreading throughout copyright law, it's quite possible that everyone who ever touched a machine capable of reproducing copyrighted content infringed in a way or another. Often without even trying or knowing. And the logic reaction is of course "why bother trying?".If it's impossible to work within the limits of the law, people start ignoring the law. Basically, you could imprison anyone with a computer on grounds of copyright violation. I'm fairly sure you'

Of course I have something to hide. If you don't, install PCAnywhere on your PC and post IP, Port and user/pass.

I'm getting REALLY royally pissed at "nothing to hide" bullcrap. Sorry, but my privacy is the only thing I will defend with my life. It's neither your, nor any country's, nor the RIAA's business what's on my PC, in my apartment or on my mind.

Yes, I have something to hide. It's called my private life. You want it? Over my dead body.

Accusation does not prove guilt.Just because the RIAA has chosen to burden someone with the costs of defending themselvesin the courts, it doesn't necessarily mean that the individual has done anything wrong wrtto the RIAA.

Regardless, the indivdiual with very limited resources will be forced to pay big bucks toeither defend their reputation or cave in to the extortion in order to risk some futurejudgement based on fantasy damages.

The RIAA shouldn't get an advantage that is not available to someone that's su

This complaint is no better. It claims they "detected an individual" who is "distributing". But they don't actually detect any distribution. Their "download and/or distribute" language makes no sense, since they never detect anybody downloading anything.

If you cannot explain a term to someone who does not understand that term, then you yourself don't understand that term (and all of its dependencies until you reach a level that person does understand). In this case, I'm fairly certain the judge knows both the difference between a computer and a person, and the difference between distribution and potential distribution. If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that they're simplifying to make up for the judge's lack of technical understanding. T

If you cannot explain a term to someone who does not understand that term, then you yourself don't understand that term (and all of its dependencies until you reach a level that person does understand). In this case, I'm fairly certain the judge knows both the difference between a computer and a person, and the difference between distribution and potential distribution. If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that they're simplifying to make up for the judge's lack of technical understanding. That's incorrect, however. Given the ease with which the correct simplification could be made, provided that the RIAA lawyers or their technical advisors do understand the concepts of an IP address and uploading and difference between a person and computer and the meaning of the word potential, the only remaining possible purpose of their simplification is not to inform, but to mislead the judge.

It's clear that the only purpose is to mislead the judge. It's not a simplification to say you detected "an individual" when you didn't. It's a lie.

Ah, I misunderstood the position of your previous post, I thought you were trying to offer that as a justification for their statement. Then you go and flip it all around on me and say yourself what I didn't want to say in order to avoid an argument I didn't want to have that I thought you'd make... bravo. And yeah, it is a lie, but I'll bet you anything that if they really get pinned down on it they'll try to call it a simplification. It's the only out for them I can see.

... I'm just putting the files where I can access them for my own listening enjoyment while I'm on the road/at work/in Starbucks. That's just fair use since I bought the rights to listen. I don't intend for anyone else to be listening, but I guess they could if they wanted to.

That defense can work, but only if you can convince a judge that you're "too dumb to know". I.e. if you happen to work in the IT field, he'll probably not believe you that you don't know what "your computer" means when he asks you to share c:\.

And forget it altogether if you run Linux. After all, every judge knows that Linux users are geeks, and they are by default criminal hackers and suspicious, and if not guilty of this crime then certainly for something else.

That defense can work, but only if you can convince a judge that you're "too dumb to know".

Not necessarily. You could say you only intended to share the files with yourself in another location. IANAL, but I don't believe the law requires an individual to take any special security precautions when dealing with copyrighted materials.

Well, then it could be neglect. For example it can in some country count as "faciliating a crime" if you leave your car unlocked with the keys on the seat and someone takes your car to commit a crime.Of course, faciliating a crime is rarely if ever called upon when it comes to computers, as malware has shown, you can be as ignorant and gullible as you want in the vicinity of a computer and you're impossibly liable for any damages. Unless, of course, you should have known better (read: you're in IT). And I g

I don't see either the RIAA or the MPAA turning down any chance to turn a buck their way- even soliciting BJ's in rest area bathrooms.

Remember, this is the same crew that established 'payola' in the late 1950's and refined it in the decades since despite several court cases decided against them for this.Reminds me of a Pennsylvania farmer I once knew. He made his living by poaching deer and selling the meat to some fancy, high dollar Maryland and D.C. restaurants. He would get caught poaching, pay the stiff fines out of a roll in his pocket and claim that it was only 3 days profits, and only got caught several times a year. Just a small operating expense...no big deal. He just laughed it off and even bragged about it.

I see the same mentality with the RIAA and MPAA, just throw crap against the walls as fast as you can...surely some of it will stick!

Reminds me of a Pennsylvania farmer I once knew. He made his living by poaching deer and selling the meat to some fancy, high dollar Maryland and D.C. restaurants. He would get caught poaching, pay the stiff fines out of a roll in his pocket and claim that it was only 3 days profits, and only got caught several times a year. Just a small operating expense...no big deal. He just laughed it off and even bragged about it.

The only unusual thing is an individual being able to use this kind of business model. Corporations have the advantage that they cannot be arrested.

There is no need to "arrest corporations". If a corporation engages in criminal enterprise, then the corporate veil is pierced, and the individual persons committing the alleged crimes can be arrested.

Well, my two thoughts are:1) Good for the farmer... the deer population in the northeast is so ridiculous that with the ticks these animals have, they're as bad as rats in the city. The states ought to up the bag limit to 3 or 4 buck per season and allow anybody who wants to get a doe license.

2) If a farmer is shooting deer on his own property, is that really poaching? It's screwy that the law could protect the deer on his property, since it could be argued the deer are his. But I don't know anything abou

Exactly. They are rats with hooves. And they aren't the little mule deer from California, either, these are the big white-tailed deer. Very large animals. I can't mow the lawn without picking ticks off my ass, and I have to surround every shrub and every flower bed with deer netting (and don't tell me that coyote urine or soap or shock sticks or any of the other half-measures work, because they absolutely do not. A hungry deer is not stoppable except by physical barrier, and even then, sometimes not. T

Not disagreeing with the main point of your post, but, and I think they're the only animal I can say this about, somebody caught poaching deer should be given a fucking medal.

Deer are nowhere near even being endangered. Their population is not falling. If things continue exactly as they are, society is certainly no worse off because of this man's actions. The punishment is too stiff. It should be lightened until the deer population reaches the point when I almost hit them only as often as other highly succ

Pennsylvania should have just changed their laws such that a second or third offense within a given time window resulted in confiscation of poaching equipment, including things like vehicles. The fines a warning, the loss of your rifle(s) and vehicle hurts.

Pennsylvania should have just changed their laws such that a second or third offense within a given time window resulted in confiscation of poaching equipment, including things like vehicles. The fines a warning, the loss of your rifle(s) and vehicle hurts.

Great idea! Let's give the government another excuse to take people's property and force them into submission! You should run for senate.

It's already routine treatment for people who rustle timber from public lands. There are too many assholes out there for society to pretend like the commons doesn't need to be protected from them. I'm not generally a fan of confiscation laws, but they are better than outright bans, and so on.

You wouldn't steal a handbag... You wouldn't steal a car... You wouldn't steal a baby... You wouldn't shoot a policeman, and then steal his helmet... You wouldn't go to the toilet in his helmet, and then send it to the policeman's grieving widow, and then steal it again! Downloading films is stealing!

Ok, then I have to find a nice person in the UK again. Unfortunately, this is one of the shows we'll never get aired here. We get any kind of crap, but for Dr. Who and IT Crowd one has to resort to means that are discussed here as being illegal...

Sadly the new series isn't quite as good as the first. We think we've worked out why too... It's because the first series was mostly a sitcom set in an IT department, the second series seems to be more a sitcom about the people who work in an IT department.
Shame really. That said, it's still better than most of TV!

So it's now, like, a sitcom about people who work in an IT department who have a real life and do real life things?Oh c'mon, I hate sitcoms that are not authentic.

But then, the "old" IT crowd was certainly mostly funny for geeks. I remember showing it to a fellow student and he was laughing throughout the first episode. Another friend of mine, notoriously NON-IT'ish, sat there like it was a French movie or something similar interesting. I honestly though he'd go ahead and pick up the newspaper 'til we're do

Any technology which allows the end-user to produce their own media (and some which didn't) has scared the entertainment industry.

First there were records - "But who will pay to see live performances if they can just play the record?". Then they realised that they could make a roaring trade selling records themselves.

Then came analogue tapes: "But who will buy records if they can just tape from a friend?" - then they established a business in selling tapes as they're smaller and it's very hard to play a record in a car.

Then came videos: "But who will go to the cinema if they can record movies from the TV?" - then they established a business in selling pre-recorded videos.

Then came affordable CD burners: "But who will buy CDs if they can copy from a friend?" - well, actually rather a lot of people. Though that didn't stop a lot of countries being pressured to establish taxes on blank media and passing these taxes back to the recording studios.

Now audio and movies can be easily shared over the Internet: "But we must stop this, lest nobody buy music, movies or visit the cinema!". What they really mean is "We're not sure that this sits well with our business model and we haven't yet figured out how best to exploit it so it does. While we're in the process of doing that, please talk quietly amongst yourselves AND STOP SHARING MUSIC, DAMMIT!".

Any technology which allows the end-user to produce their own media (and some which didn't) has scared the entertainment industry.

After reading your list of different media types, and how bussinesses had to adapt over the years in order to survive, it seems reasonable to expect the same thing to happen with our current situation. But I'm not so sure, because the stakes are higher for bussinesses, and consumers are more empowered than ever to do what they want.

I disagree that the stakes are substantially higher.The entertainment industry has always had a business based on flogging what's New! Shiny! Entertaining! And Not Identical To The Last One, Honest! (singles, latest Britney Spears clone, latest song by established artist) - and another side to the business based on flogging you what was New! Shiny! Entertaining! in the past (albums, DVDs).

It goes without saying that the part of the business which is likely to suffer from private media sharing is the latter

There might have been a window for the same corporations monetizing p2p and resting on their laurels a few years back, but it's shutting rapidly. People are getting used to the idea of user-generated content, long-tail artists, music discovery sites, etc - all of which spells the end for Big Media as we know it. Old-style p2p is losing its allure to many becuause there are now so many places you can hear that song/watch that movie RIGHT NOW.

Their problem this time is that it's not so easy to cash in on "empty media" as it was in the past. In some countries you pay an "RIAA tax" on every blank tape, CDR and now even hard drive you buy.For tapes and CDRs this didn't bother businesses so much. Hard drives do. Furthermore, unlike tapes and CDRs, Hard drives are by magnitudes bigger and can be used more often than just once or a handful of times. Not to mention that businesses are running rampart against this kind of "tax", because, well, just beca

They replaced the "and/or making available" language with language claiming that they "detected an individual". Aside from what the attorney linked to in the article says about the dropping of the old language being a defense, there is also a more positive defense now, from their claim:

Regardless of whether a computer downloaded or served certain files, they did NOT "detect an individual" at all! What they detected was an IP. If your sister or cousin or the neighbor had theoretical access to your compute

Regardless of whether a computer downloaded or served certain files, they did NOT "detect an individual" at all! What they detected was an IP. If your sister or cousin or the neighbor had theoretical access to your computer at the time (and it only has to be theoretical), then then cannot pin this on an individual, so they have no case.

While I agree that detecting an IP address isn't proof that someone is responsible, isn't it enough suspision to obtain a warrant to search any computers on that address, a

In a sense it doesn't matter, because that is what they are claiming in their court papers. If their claim is false (they did not "detect an individual"), there is no case. If they meant something else, then they should have claimed something else.

But to answer your question, I think whether it is sufficient to justify a warrant is a matter for a judge to decide. If I were a judge, I would probably say "no", because IP addresses can be spoofed, and because, as I mentioned, there is the possibility of oth

They replaced the "and/or making available" language with language claiming that they "detected an individual". Aside from what the attorney linked to in the article says about the dropping of the old language being a defense, there is also a more positive defense now, from their claim:
Regardless of whether a computer downloaded or served certain files, they did NOT "detect an individual" at all! What they detected was an IP. If your sister or cousin or the neighbor had theoretical access to your computer at the time (and it only has to be theoretical), then then cannot pin this on an individual, so they have no case.
Other cases have been won on the basis that the person who allegedly did the downloading had an open wifi access point on their internet connection, so the "crime" could actually have been committed by an unknown party, half a block away.

I brought this to the attention of the Judge at the June 29th conference in Warner v. Cassin [blogspot.com], where the attorney, Timothy Reynolds, actually said to the Judge that their investigator had "detected an individual". The Judge got mad at me, though, when I indicated to him that it was a violation of Rule 11 for the attorney to have made the deliberately false statement, instead of getting mad at the attorney who'd lied to the Court.

Sorry to hear that. But I guess there is no way to force all judges to be rational. We have had some bad decisions by local judges around here, too. But that is just my opinion... while I have a smattering of legal education, I am not one of them, nor a lawyer.

Sorry to hear that. But I guess there is no way to force all judges to be rational. We have had some bad decisions by local judges around here, too.

It's not as bad as that. If you read the transcript you'll see that () the Judge didn't make any decisions, and (b) he evidenced awareness that it was impossible for them to have 'detected an individual'.

He just seemed to think it was bad form for me to have brought up Rule 11.

Well, as you know FRCP rule 11 (esp subsection b) isn't used successfully that much. The impact it has that I see is 1 - it allows old lawyers to scare the crap out of younger ones by threatening them, and 2 - it guides the way we plead. So rather than using it to slap down others (except in the most egregious cases), it is kind of a behavior modifier. I've never really seen someone explicitly violate 11b (thus I've never threatened with it), so I can't be sure what judges think of using it, but the inf

The Judge got mad at me, though, when I indicated to him that it was a violation of Rule 11 for the attorney to have made the deliberately false statement, instead of getting mad at the attorney who'd lied to the Court.

Regardless of whether a computer downloaded or served certain files, they did NOT "detect an individual" at all! What they detected was an IP. If your sister or cousin or the neighbor had theoretical access to your computer at the time (and it only has to be theoretical), then then cannot pin this on an individual, so they have no case.

Yes, but that is a bit more iffy. It could be argued that you were using Tor specifically in order to avoid getting caught. It still means that they did not catch you... but it raises questions.

As an analogy, imagine that a liquor store had been robbed, and police caught you hiding in a dumpster in an alley nearby. You might claim (even honestly) that you had only been dumpster diving, but it still looks pretty suspicious. Probably not the best example, but it makes the point.

I know Perry Mason is a fictional character. I'm not suggesting anyone even breathe the words 'harassment,' 'abuse of process,' or 'barratry,' and certainly not 'disbarment;' even crooks are entitled to hire an attorney and that attorney has to be allowed to give it the old college try. But -- sheesh!I can see the judge correcting you if you were to take umbrage on the court's behalf (something like "*I* will decide whether plaintiff's counsel is wasting this court's time, Mr. Beckerman") but your client

Naturally you mean things like various Linux distribution ISOs, works released under Creative Commons license or in the public domain, your own creative content, etc.? It's always been safe to seed those. Why do you ask?

You must be new...no, wait...RIAA sues YOU!...I mean...PROFIT!!!Sorry, I'm just an expression of the slashdot group-think mind-fuck that goes for "copryright reform" discourse here.

The whole point of what NYCL is doing is almost a public service in pushing the final dregs of the the entertainment industry into the 21st Century. They should be fricking _paying_ him for the good this will do them once the pain is over and they come out the other side.

they are dropping this kind of defense. If you out something available on the internet they
1. Have to prove it was actually you who made the file available
2. The content of the file is actually what the filename indicates (If you put a empty text file online with the name Pirates_3_DVDRip you are not acting illegally)
3. They have to prove that the evidence in court (The actually downloaded file) was downloaded from your computer. It cant be a DVD that was created at the riaa main office.
Since this is

All true. But at least in the case of "Pirates_3_DVDRip" I could probably make a reasonable guess.

But if I've got a file called "Heroes.rar" on my drive, should I be sued by Bowie, Philip Glass, NBC or NCSoft? Or maybe it's just my essay on Joseph Campbell. I remember one site getting into trouble for distributing Open Office, because the second word there matched a search for pirate copies of Microsoft's suite.

That guy is a blooming idiot! The defense lawyer knew more about IP addresses, routers, networks, and MAC addresses than they guy with an PhD in computer engineering! It was pretty entertaining reading.

> And finally, what tack will defendants' lawyers take?
Yes, indeed. What tack could they possibly take? Maybe a thumb-tack or horse tack or they might even use some Blu-Tack(tm)?...or maybe they'll go in a completely different direction and use a TACT.

Lets see how many flaws there is to the court cases...Let us assume that the plaintiff claims that ip 64.233.183.104 has "made available" a torrent.

a)The plaintiff has no evidence that they have scanned ip 64.233.183.104. Indeed, they don't even have any evidence that they conducted an investigation at all. They may say that ip 64.233.183.104 was used, but they can't provide evidence for it.

b)An ip doesn't correspond to an individual, it corresponds to a client or server. The client or server in question ma

The only "unauthorized" downloading is when you access servers without the permission of the server maintainer. When I download a song or album, It's not unauthorized. The person making the files available has authorized me to download them. It's them who's actually breaking the law by offering copy protected files for upload.

If they set up a sting site and get you to download copyrighted content from it, it's "authorized".

If they tap your telephone line, cable connection, or spyware in your computer, that's illegal on their part.

Legally proving that you ever downloaded anything (as opposed to getting it from somewhere else) is so virtually impossible that it should have been stricken from everyone of these complaints long ago. I